Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 935512" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>"crowbar"</p><p></p><p>Yep...guess "the people of Indiana who were not allowed to exercise their voice over this measure" were really denied their "rights" alright...although I'm left wondering just "who" those people you mentioned are. After all, it's only been an issue over the last COUPLE of elections - over a period of eight years and more - and it was "only" the democratically elected representatives of those "people" who made the decision. As for your idea of an "end run", you DO realize, don't you, that the Indiana constitution limits the ability to promulgate legislation to the representatives ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, and those representatives ALONE? Is Indiana supposed to arbitrarily amend it's constitution to favor a MINORITY, albeit a highly vocal and obnoxious one, which chooses to ignore the validity of that document? Are the representatives of the State supposed to ignore the wishes of an OVERWHELMING majority of the State's voters in order to accede to the desires of a relatively minor special interest group? What kind of "credibility" would those representatives have had with the voters who elected them if they had NOT made that alleged "end run" you describe? You also realize, don't you, that the "objecting" representatives looked into the legality of such a "ballot initiative" and determined that it would NOT be legal? That, in fact, it was PROHIBITED by state law? You DID do your research to that extent, didn't you?</p><p></p><p>As for your "union shop" description, you ARE aware of one of the first acts Gov. Daniels signed on coming into office, aren't you? I'm speaking, of course, of the path taken in terms of "RTW" status of the State's public employees. Or that, in terms of the businesses attracted, the largest components of same chose to locate in decidedly NON-union portions of the state? Or are we not supposed to let little issues like "the facts" get in the way of our determination?</p><p></p><p>The truth is that the Indiana legislature figuratively bent over backwards - again, over the time frame of several years - to listen to opposing voices. But, in the end, it had to be responsible to the wishes of its constituency. THAT - and that alone - is why the legislation passed.</p><p></p><p>Seems to me that those who "trampled" on the voters rights were those who REFUSED to do the job they were elected to do; i.e. - represent their constituencies interests IN THE LEGISLATURE! NOT in Illinois! NOT in some motel room on the north side of Indy....but in the halls of the Statehouse. And I guess you wouldn't consider EVADING such responsibilities by high-tailing it across the state line an "end run", would you? Nor, I suspect, would you consider the baffling of the MAJORITY interests of the state's voters by a frustrated by a group of politicians acting childishly an "end run". Rather it seems that type of "end run" is your style of "democracy". Trotsky would have been so proud!</p><p></p><p>As for how the "real world" works, I can't help but wonder how guys like you explain the "foreign" auto plants being built in places like Tennessee. Or Alabama? Or Georgia? Seen a whole lot of them being built in Michigan, have ya'? What about New York? Or Illinois? And I'm sure [not!] no one in Indiana wanted a facility like Volkswagen's to be built in the state, did they? Want me to go on?</p><p></p><p>As for your "padded room" allusion...well, what happened to all the screaming and moaning guys like you made so noisily when it came to Boeing's decision to locate in South Carolina? Seems you guys were whistling quite a different tune then; seems you were claiming that a company WAS intentionally choosing to locate in a "RTW" state...specifically because it WAS a "RTW" state.</p><p></p><p>Lastly, if my "delusion" (and I'm not sure how you determined that was *MY* "delusion", given that I never claimed ownership of it...but since when has a guy like "crowbar" ever been concerned with something of such minor concern as the truth!) that "Companies would move their operations just to save their members the Union dues is laughable", then what's your problem? If it's so "laughable" - and not an issue - then why are guys like you so against "RTW"? After all, if "RTW" status is NOT a determining factor, if it truly IS "laughable", then what do guys like you have to be afraid of? Why are you expending so much time and effort on a situation that is "laughable"? See a contradiction there?</p><p></p><p>Sorry, but if there's any "stomping" going on, it seems to me that it's being performed by guys like you who are quite willing to "stomp" all over the prerogatives of a democratically elected majority...while at the same time "stomping" on the rights of workers to choose their OWN course of action. But, as witnessed by your posts here on B.C, *YOU* aren't the type of person who would want to do such "stomping", right? N.o.o.o....not an "intelligent", "honest" individual like "crowbar" who's so concerned about the interests of OTHERS! [smile] No way, no how! </p><p></p><p>In the end, I guess guys like you can prove the democratically elected majority of states like Indiana wrong. You can take *YOUR* plants, *YOUR* places of employment, the jobs *YOU* have to offer to states that are decidedly NON-"RTW". That'll show 'em, 'eh?</p><p></p><p>Think there's a good chance of that happening, do ya'? Personally, I won't be holding my breath.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 935512, member: 16651"] "crowbar" Yep...guess "the people of Indiana who were not allowed to exercise their voice over this measure" were really denied their "rights" alright...although I'm left wondering just "who" those people you mentioned are. After all, it's only been an issue over the last COUPLE of elections - over a period of eight years and more - and it was "only" the democratically elected representatives of those "people" who made the decision. As for your idea of an "end run", you DO realize, don't you, that the Indiana constitution limits the ability to promulgate legislation to the representatives ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, and those representatives ALONE? Is Indiana supposed to arbitrarily amend it's constitution to favor a MINORITY, albeit a highly vocal and obnoxious one, which chooses to ignore the validity of that document? Are the representatives of the State supposed to ignore the wishes of an OVERWHELMING majority of the State's voters in order to accede to the desires of a relatively minor special interest group? What kind of "credibility" would those representatives have had with the voters who elected them if they had NOT made that alleged "end run" you describe? You also realize, don't you, that the "objecting" representatives looked into the legality of such a "ballot initiative" and determined that it would NOT be legal? That, in fact, it was PROHIBITED by state law? You DID do your research to that extent, didn't you? As for your "union shop" description, you ARE aware of one of the first acts Gov. Daniels signed on coming into office, aren't you? I'm speaking, of course, of the path taken in terms of "RTW" status of the State's public employees. Or that, in terms of the businesses attracted, the largest components of same chose to locate in decidedly NON-union portions of the state? Or are we not supposed to let little issues like "the facts" get in the way of our determination? The truth is that the Indiana legislature figuratively bent over backwards - again, over the time frame of several years - to listen to opposing voices. But, in the end, it had to be responsible to the wishes of its constituency. THAT - and that alone - is why the legislation passed. Seems to me that those who "trampled" on the voters rights were those who REFUSED to do the job they were elected to do; i.e. - represent their constituencies interests IN THE LEGISLATURE! NOT in Illinois! NOT in some motel room on the north side of Indy....but in the halls of the Statehouse. And I guess you wouldn't consider EVADING such responsibilities by high-tailing it across the state line an "end run", would you? Nor, I suspect, would you consider the baffling of the MAJORITY interests of the state's voters by a frustrated by a group of politicians acting childishly an "end run". Rather it seems that type of "end run" is your style of "democracy". Trotsky would have been so proud! As for how the "real world" works, I can't help but wonder how guys like you explain the "foreign" auto plants being built in places like Tennessee. Or Alabama? Or Georgia? Seen a whole lot of them being built in Michigan, have ya'? What about New York? Or Illinois? And I'm sure [not!] no one in Indiana wanted a facility like Volkswagen's to be built in the state, did they? Want me to go on? As for your "padded room" allusion...well, what happened to all the screaming and moaning guys like you made so noisily when it came to Boeing's decision to locate in South Carolina? Seems you guys were whistling quite a different tune then; seems you were claiming that a company WAS intentionally choosing to locate in a "RTW" state...specifically because it WAS a "RTW" state. Lastly, if my "delusion" (and I'm not sure how you determined that was *MY* "delusion", given that I never claimed ownership of it...but since when has a guy like "crowbar" ever been concerned with something of such minor concern as the truth!) that "Companies would move their operations just to save their members the Union dues is laughable", then what's your problem? If it's so "laughable" - and not an issue - then why are guys like you so against "RTW"? After all, if "RTW" status is NOT a determining factor, if it truly IS "laughable", then what do guys like you have to be afraid of? Why are you expending so much time and effort on a situation that is "laughable"? See a contradiction there? Sorry, but if there's any "stomping" going on, it seems to me that it's being performed by guys like you who are quite willing to "stomp" all over the prerogatives of a democratically elected majority...while at the same time "stomping" on the rights of workers to choose their OWN course of action. But, as witnessed by your posts here on B.C, *YOU* aren't the type of person who would want to do such "stomping", right? N.o.o.o....not an "intelligent", "honest" individual like "crowbar" who's so concerned about the interests of OTHERS! [smile] No way, no how! In the end, I guess guys like you can prove the democratically elected majority of states like Indiana wrong. You can take *YOUR* plants, *YOUR* places of employment, the jobs *YOU* have to offer to states that are decidedly NON-"RTW". That'll show 'em, 'eh? Think there's a good chance of that happening, do ya'? Personally, I won't be holding my breath. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
The Truth About Right to Work (for less) in Indiana
Top